The situation which has developed around the discussion in the Synodal Theological Commission of the theological views of Fr Georgi Kochetkov continues to evoke heightened interest. After publication of interviews with Metropolitan Filaret and Fr Georgi himself, in which he said that in a number of articles in the press by a number of his "defenders" "there was a desire to cause even harm to the church," it seemed that passions over this topic should have calmed down. Now, it seems, those who really want good for Fr Georgi should join him in showing gratitude for the commission's solution. However already today the well known writer Sergei Bychkov tried to use even this situation for his own goals which are far removed, it now is evident, from a wish to help Fr Georgi.
In his note, which consists of only one paragraph, he assembles enough fantasies to make up a whole science fiction novel. We will leave it to the writer's conscience that he calls some of the most authoritative Moscow priests, fathers Dimitry Smirnov and Arkady Shatov, "the most aggressive portion of the Moscow clergy." But that the Synodal Theological Commission (SBK) of the Russian Orthodox clergy was created at the demand of these priests cannot be called anything other than completely absurd; and finally, where in Metropolitan Filaret's interview the author found that "the metropolitan of Minsk and Belorussia (properly, of Minsk and Slutsk--D.S.) Filaret admitted that "nothing heretical was found in Kochetkov's books" remains, apparently, a riddle even for the MK note's author himself, the more so since in the next line he affirms that the extent to which Fr Georgi's views correspond to Orthodox teaching can be judged only after he has answered the questions sent to him by SBK.
We turned to the secretary of SBK, Fr Vladimir Shmaly, with a request to explain several questions connected with the aforementioned problem:
--Father Vladimir, how would you comment on the opinion expressed by Sergei Bychkov that the Synodal Theological Commission was created on the demand of "the most aggressive portion of the Moscow clergy"?
--I do not know whether it is appropriate in general to comment on such a statement. It has nothing to do with reality at all. I suggest that the attentive Orthodox reader knows the worth of the revelations of the writer you have quoted. As regards the Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox church, it is a permanent working consultative and analytical body of the Holy Synod, formed by decision of the Holy Synod of 28 December 1993. In its activity the commission is subordinate to His Holiness the patriarch and the Holy Synod. Its tasks are defined by the Holy Synod in the following way: providing consultation support of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox church and other church institutions in matters of a theological and doctrinal nature and theological analysis of critical problems of the life of the Russian Orthodox church and providing coordination of the scholarly theological activity of synodal institutions, dioceses, and other institutions of the Russian Orthodox church. In the years it has existed the commission has studied most diverse questions submitted for its review by the supreme church authority. The chairman of the commission, His Blessedness Filaret, Metropolitan of Minsk and Slutsk, patriarchal exarch of all Belarus, regularly gave account for the work of the commission at sessions of the Holy Synod and the bishops' councils of the Russian Orthodox church in 1994, 1997, and 2000. The activity of the commission always has been highly valued by the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church. All this information, as well as the composition of the commission, can be found on the official sites of the Moscow patriarchate as well as on other Orthodox sites on the net. As regards Fr Georgi Kochetkov, his question has been by no means the only topic for the commission's study. It was submitted by the patriarch to SBK at the end of 2000 with a directive to review the conclusion prepared by the so-called "Moscow" commission chaired by Archpriest Sergei Pravdoliubov, which was created by decision of the patriarch in the middle of last year for studying the doctrinal studies of Fr Georgi Kochetkov.
--In your view, to what extent does the claim that Metropolitan Filaret declared "that nothing heretical was found in Kochetkov's books" correspond to reality and what is the theological commission's judgment on this question at the present?
--Metropolitan Filaret did not claim anything of the sort. To be persuaded of this it is enough to look at the text of the interview published by "strana.ru." On my part I would say that quite the contrary, at the present the presidium of the Synodal Theological Commission possesses a list of quotes from Fr Georgi Kochetkov's works that cause the presidium serious doubts about their correspondence to Orthodox doctrine. In the near future, as the chairman of SBK has already said, this list will be sent to Fr Georgi for appropriate response.
--To what extent was the conclusion of the Moscow commission of Fr Sergei Pravdoliubov used by SBK?
--That conclusion was received for information and taken as the basis of SBK's work. It seems this document cannot be called absolutely complete since it has several shortcomings caused, it seems, by objective circumstances. But these do not diminish the significance of the document as a whole. Moreover, this list of questions which will be sent to Fr Georgi Kochetkov is practically 100 percent created from materials from the Pravdoliubov commission.
--What can be said about the nature of the questions to be sent to Fr Georgi: what are the requirements for the answers and when is he supposed to give the answers to them?
--The questions to Fr Georgi were structured thematically and "hierarchically": there is a group of questions based on those places in Fr Georgi's works which evoke principled doubts about their correspondence to Orthodox doctrine; a second group of question are places from his texts that seem ambiguous, including a non-Orthodox interpretation; a third group of questions are connected with his statements that, in the opinion of the commission, are unacceptable in form and contents in the works of an Orthodox writer. These questions will be submitted to Fr Georgi in the near future. As regards Fr Georgi's answers, I can say only that they should be exhaustive and unambiguous. At the present stage the fate of the review of this question and, consequently, the final conclusion of the Synodal Theological Commission depends, in the first place, on Fr Georgi himself. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 June 2001)
KOCHETKOV'S FORGIVENESS
by Sergei Bychkov
Moskovskii komsomolets, 14 June 2001
For several years the uproar involving the parish of the Orthodox priest Georgi Kochetkov has not fallen off the pages of not only Russian newspapers but even foreign ones.
The parish that was born at the end of the seventies and existed many years underground, at the beginning of the nineties got a church. After the church on Lubianka was renovated it was transferred to the control of Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov. Fr Georgi's parish raised a second church from the ruins. And then a prohibition rang out. Because of the uproar over a second priest, Fr Mikhail Dubovitsky, Fr Georgi was banned from priestly ministry and twelve parishioners who were very close to him was excommunicated. Despite a quick public repentance by the "guilty," the discipline lasted another year. In that time the most aggressive portion of the Moscow clergy under the wise leadership of Archbishop Arseny Epifanov accused Fr Georgi of heresy. The priests Dmitry Smirnov and Arkady Shatov were especially zealous, who once had been close friends of the disciplined priest. At their insistence the Synodal Theological Commission was created, which carefully studied Fr Georgi's works. In a recent interview the chairman of the commission, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Belorussia, acknowledged that nothing heretical had been found in Kochetkov's books. But the next stage in the commission's work is beginning; it has prepared a series of questions for the priest. Only after Fr Georgi answers these questions will it be possible to judge to what extent his views conform to Orthodox doctrine. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 June 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
The doctrine was developed for the purpose of coordinating efforts of federal agencies of state power and bodies of state power of the constituent regions of the Russian federation for improving and developing their relations with religious associations, directed to the guarantee of conditions for Russian citizens' exercise of freedom of religious profession as well as conditions for maintaining and developing the spiritual and moral potential of the multinational people of the Russian federation.
The draft grows out of the necessity of preserving the unity of the cultural space and state integrity of Russia in new historical conditions and maintaining and strengthening ties with fellow citizens in foreign countries. It takes into account the interests of the state and of religious associations as well as the entire Russian society.
The text of the doctrine and responses to it are located on the Internet site www.state-religion.ru. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 June 2001)
LEADERS OF CONFESSIONS SUPPORT DRAFT OF DOCTRINE OF STATE POLICY ON
RELATIONS WITH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
Blagovest-info,
13 June 2001
Leaders of leading religious organizations of Russia supported the draft of the state policy in the area of relations with religious associations in RF, worked out by the Chief Administration of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian federation for the city of Moscow and the Institute of State-Confessional Relations and Law.
The chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate (OVTsSMP), Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad declared that the basic positions of the draft prepared by scholars "are free of a recurrence of the thinking of state atheism," and they deserve a positive evaluation. In his words, the authors of the draft "quite rightly and consistently distinguish the spheres of cooperation of the state and traditional religious organizations and they speak of giving the latter possibilities of broad participation in nationwide work in the spheres of spirituan and moral training of the individual, social work, scienct, culture, and preservation of the historical heritage." Metropolitan Kirill noted that "in the doctrine the principles, goals, and tasks of state policy with regard to religious organizations are presented responsibly."
The chairman of the Central Ecclesiastical Board of Muslims of Russian and European CIS Countries, the supreme mufti of Russia Talgat Tajuddin emphasized that "religious organizations of Russia need a consistent, stable, and functional model of state relations with them, which would suit both sides." "The state must be concerned not only about political and economic interests but also with protecting the spiritual sphere," the supreme mufti's response says. He pointed to the necessity of "restoration" of traditional religious organizations and "opposition to religious extremism." In Talgat Tajuddin's opinion, "past, present, and future right-believing Muslims and followers of traditional confessions in our country and mutually related." "Believers who profess traditional religions have lived peacefully for centuries in Russia with complete preservation of their own identity."
The director of the Institute of Religion and Law, Anatoly Pchelintsev, who represents the interests of protestant organizations, noted the positive aspect of this draft: it reflect positive experience of the construction of state-confessional relations in foreign states and international practice. The attorney stressed that the draft "does not conflict with the principle of the secular character of the Russian state," and it incorporates the concept of the "traditional religious organization." "This completely conforms with the constitutional principle of the equality of religious associations before the law," the director of the Institute of Religion and Law thinks. In his response he notes that the state has the right to grant preference to those confessions with which a substantial portion of the citizens of Russia affiliate themselves. Anatoly Pchelintsev expressed confidence that "traditional religious organizations should also include the largest protestant confessions that have taken root in the Russian federation and are represented in the Council of Relations with Religious Associations of the Russian presidential administration." (tr. by PDS, posted 15 June 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
Recently the population of Russia has become convinced that political power in the country is dealing responsibly with problems that are arising and in many respects the situation has become more stable and predictable. This was the assessment expressed by Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all-Rus in an interview published by the Roman newspaper "Messajero," ITAR-TASS reports.
"I know Vladimir Putin as a competent and responsible man," the patriarch continued. "In the course of our personal meetings a respectful attitude toward the Orthodox church on the part of the head of state has emerged and I view this with satisfaction."
Patriarch Alexis gave a high evaluation of interconfessional contacts that were established with the Piedmont diocese of the Roman Catholic church during a visit to Italy by a delegation of RPTs headed by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad on the occasion of the exhibit of the Christian relic, the shroud of Turin. The primate of RPTs was not about to participate himself in this pilgrimage since he considers Italy traditional canonical territory of the pope of Rome and the time for an exchange of visits, in the patriarch's opinion, still has not arrived. Alexis II noted that the apologies expressed by John Paul II are alone insufficient and they should be followed by concrete actions directed to putting an end to proselytism and destruction of parishes of RPTs in western Ukraine. After the war we had expected that the Roman church would view us as brothers, but this did not happen, the patriarch emphasized.
Alexis II mentioned the renewal of the dialogue achieved at the theological meeting in Baltimore, USA, after a seven-year hiatus. At that meeting there also were noted serious disagreements in the approaches of representatives of RPTs and the Roman see, in particular, to the question of the status of the Uniate church. In Baltimore no joint document was signed and both delegations maintained their earlier position, the head of the Russian Orthodox church stated. (tr. by PDS, posted 15 June 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
On 8 May there was a session of the presidium of the Synodal Theological Commission at which again was discussed the question pertaining to the theological views of the priest Georgi Kochetkov. This session was impatiently awaited by all who are not even much interested in internal church life. With this session the commission reached a conclusion of its months-long work on this question.
The chairman of the Synodal Theological Commission, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Slutsk, gave an exclusive interview to strana.ru in which he described the conclusions to which the commission came.
--Master, the Synodal Theological Commission has been engaged with questions connected with the theological views of Fr Georgi Kochetkov for a long time. Would could you say about the status of this problem and how it is being discussed?
--It can be said that within the confines of the commission we have concluded the discussion of this problem and have developed a list of questions for Fr Georgi, and in the near future, with the blessing of the patriarch and on my instructions, the secretary of the commission, Fr Vladimir Shmaly, will send these questions with an accompanying letter explaining what is required of Fr Georgi in connection with these questions, which we will send him, and then we will invite Fr Georgi to the theological commission and discuss with him to try to clarify his views on one or another question in personal conversation. Nevertheless, the printed word is one thing, the newspaper word is another, and an interview is a third, and what a person may think on these questions which have arisen during acquaintance with his catechisms and public statements can be clarified only in personal conversation. We are filled with good will. It is too bad that now there is speculation about this, that I have read someplace, to the effect that the hierarchy and the synod have issued an order with such a horrible expression as "soak" Fr Georgi. And this was printed in the newspaper! You know, somebody dreamed the whole thing up and wrote it down! Of course, that this thing has been dragged out, very much dragged out, perhaps really is the fault of the leadership of the church, that we did not pay attention to this problem when it was still in a rudimentary stage. It is necessary to pay attention and to propose: Fr Georgi, you are a cleric of the church; what is going on over at your place; let's talk, explain, perhaps something can be fixed up. The difficult times for the church have passed and now the church has broad possibilities for its activity. If you have some advice and recommendations, then come on, there is a department on catechesis and it can respect your goals and experience. But to do this exclusively and with such a pose, that's not right.
Perhaps the church leadership did not pay attention at the right time to our people and our youth, which were always somehow at a distance from the church, at first on the basis of objective circumstances and later in reality and perhaps it was necessary to engage in construction, to open churches and monasteries, and everything like that, but not ahead of the youth. But now there is the possibility and now there even exists a Department for Work with Youth and excellent work is being conducted by the Department on Cathechesis and many Orthodox educational institutions have been opened. It is necessary to get linked up with this process. Let's see how our conversation goes with him. On our part we will fulfill the patriarch's instruction. Perhaps it would have been more proper to turn over this question directly to the Synodal Theological Commission, because here we view this problem somewhat more broadly. The local Moscow group which dealt with this question perhaps acted somewhat tendentiously and perhaps it lacked a breadth of views. But we have fixed what we could, as we could, and we hope that with God's help this problem will be resolved.
--Master, recently Fr Georgi's explanatory note was published, in which he responds to the conclusion of the Moscow commission. Was it used by the theological commission?
--We studied it and used it in the process of our work, but if this explanatory note had given all answers then we would not have any questions. More or less definitive opinions will be expressed by the commission on the basis of the results of a conversation with Fr Georgi. Because all these articles and statements--it also is bad and unpleasant for us, church people, to give food for the most diverse people. Why was it necessary to publish all this on the Internet? Actually, there are serious theologians who use this source of information effectively. But you know it's a rich field for scribblers that just gives them an occasion to write something. So it is necessary to respect one's self and one should not present to a broad public in this way the achievements, considerations, and conclusions that someone has come to as a result of work. Still I nevertheless have asked delicately. Wasn't it possible to restrain himself. Fr Georgi explains it by the fact that the conclusion of the Moscow commission had appeared and he had nothing to do with it. And once it had appeared then he decided that he should issue a defense since his explanatory note supposedly had not been received for information, so he decided to put the whole sum of his works on the Internet. We have acted honestly with regard to Fr Georgi. We did not publish a thing and we will not publish anything, including even the list of questions that have now been prepared; we will give it nowhere. We will wait patiently. We have not predetermined anything; we have not published our conclusion as our final opinion. We await the conversation; we await an explanation. God grant that this conversation happens. We are not simply talking and not simply writing, but we are remembering him in our prayers.
Questions by Dmitry Safonov. (tr. by PDS, posted 12 June 2001)
FR GEORGI KOCHETKOV: "DECISION OF THE THEOLOGICAL
COMMISSION IS THE BEST WAY OUT OF THE SITUATION"
strana.ru,
12 June 2001
The priest Georgi Kochetkov has described in an interview with strana.ru what he thinks with regard to the decision of the Synodal Theological Commission on his question.
--Fr Georgi, what could you say about what His Blessedness Metropolitan Filaret said in his interview?
--After publication of the interview of Metropolitan Filaret regarding the current state of affairs in the Synodal Theological Commission with respect to my problem, I would like to say three things. First, the statement by Metropolitan Filaret, this sage hierarch of the Russian Orthodox church, evokes in me sincere trust and sympathy. It again revives the hope (which, incidentally, had never left me in the depths of my soul) for a normal solution of our question. Second, I am ready to fulfill all requirements imposed upon me on the part of the Synodal Theological Commission, first, to answer all oral and written questions so that no doubts remain that I, abiding in the bosom of our common mother Orthodox church, have confessed, do confess, and in the future will confess the Orthodox faith in all its fullness, to the extent that the Lord gives us to understand at the present time. Third, I am ready to request earnestly the removal from the Internet all of my works, about which Metropolitan Filaret speaks and which can be considered interim materials in the work of the Synodal Theological Commission. That is, I am ready to request this of those who were forced to publish on their sites my interim explanations in response to the publication of the working documents that contained inadequately based, even tendentious, as Metropolitan Filaret expressed it, accusations against me. In addition, my catechetical books also were posted on the Internet so that people themselves could compare their texts and meaning with the accusations. These are the three basic thoughts that I would like to express at the outset.
--Fr Georgi, much has been said in the press about the pressure which, in the opinion of the writers of these articles, was exerted on the synodal commission by some of your opponents; do you agree with these claims?
--Judging by the last interview by Metropolitan Filaret, I would say that such pressure, even if it existed, was somehow overcome. Now there is no sense of such pressure. Of course, before our case was overblown it was necessary to judge these with regard to the church. Although the metropolitan rightly says that they were occupied with construction of churches and opening of monasteries, which really was very labor intensive, and the means were lacking, as were the forces--we understand all this very well. But nevertheless it is a shame that in due time practically nobody openly, other than the fundamentalists, gave any attention to those problems of the internal life of the church about which we were trying to speak. In general, I never insisted on this; I only tried to give an opportunity for consideration. Of course, I did this in the way I could, without any pretense to some kind of exclusivity or, so to speak, special "charismaticism."
--That is, from the start you did not imagine that your experience was something that was peculiar, exclusive, and essential to your parish only?
--Absolutely. But this was simply our particular experience. Although we also tried very strictly to construct it on a churchwide basis, understanding that never can any individual person or simple priest resolve the problems of the whole church. The whole church should deal with this and the hierarchy in particular, the synod, most holy patriarch, and so on. Thus we were distressed that this simply did not happen. True, there really were many objective hindrances to this. But now, it seems, interest in these problems has reached a churchwide level and human passions have left--this is significant and necessary. Master Filaret recalled that there are church departments for work with youth and on catechesis and that it is possible to cooperate with them. We are happy about this; you know, our experience has been collected not for ourselves nor in our own name but for the church. For our brotherhood, institute, and youth center it really must be said that this should be a subject for discussion and an occasion for exchange of opinions and for a variety of approaches that always has been accepted in the church within clearly understood boundaries.
--Fr Georgi, in this regard is it possible to say, as has been claimed in a number of articles, that the hierarchy supposedly tried, using the expression which Filaret mentioned, to "soak" you, to suppress you, and that there was some kind of persecution on the part of the hierarchy? How adequate are these views?
--It seems to me that there were, in any case, some extreme articles. Although sometimes, if one speaks quite frankly, the situation really was something like that, in any case from the point of view of society. I think that now it is impossible to speak about this. Indeed even formerly this was not coming directly from the hierarchy, although such an impression could have been created. For a long time now I have not seen anything of the sort, if one discounts the truly tendentious work of the Moscow group, as Filaret called it. That is I now do not see any incidents of persecution, let alone a "soaking."
--Fr Georgi, suppose you are invited to the theological commission and are asked about a number of places in your books that confuse many believers, whether you agree with them?
--This is the best way out of the situation. That is the only church position and not just empty, polite words. I consider this gives the only possibility for resolving the problem. This is the problem for the present and whatever its causes may have been, it must be resolved. First, they pose the question; second, allow me a written response; third, have a personal meeting and conversation. In my view such an approach is the only ecclesiastical and canonical one and I here agree entirely with the suggestions of Master Filaret.
I think that his words were the fruit of the activity of the commission and after they were stated everything became clear. It is obvious that this was some kind of concluding statement and thus, thank God, there is hope that everything has been concluded on a strictly church-canonical basis. But we shall see; you know my "case" still has not been ended and still, unfortunately, I do not even have my own parish and many of our parishioners still are forced to wander about many different churches, for which they often are criticized.
--And when this meeting occurs and questions arise associated with your statements in the catechisms and, perhaps, you really come to see that it is impossible to prove some places in your writings with words from the holy fathers, are you prepared to renounce officially these statements?
--Here there are two possible approaches. A constructive approach is possible: if one of my statements is, let's say, not very successful and there is a desire to improve something, then of course I am ready to renounce everything, even what is in my view true in sense and spirit, but which perhaps confuses somebody or has an incomplete form. If I am shown such formulations or am helped to create them, I am ready to publish a corrected text of my catechetical conversations, taking into account all of the commission's demands. I would be happy if our church found them useful.
However if I am asked to consider myself a heretic or one who thinks wrongly on those matters in which I have not departed in any way from Orthodoxy (and I know this for sure), regarding which other people can testify--that is a different situation.
However, one cannot rule out even other possible versions. Thus for me it now is very important to get a text of the questions and the accompanying letter about what is required from me in connection with these questions.
--Father Georgi, looking over the past years, can you say that you have something to repent of before the hierarchy?
--Of course. Every believer must repent before God for the imperfection of his Christian life, for his sins, intended and unintended. When a year ago the discipline was lifted from me and my twelve parishioners, I sincerely asked forgiveness of the patriarch. I think, even now, if it were required, it would be possible to find the words and expression of repentance so as not to distort the soul.
--Fr Georgi, how would you evaluate the polemic in the press dealing with your question? Doesn't it seem to you that a number of articles were connected with a desire to expose a scandal in the Russian Orthodox church?
--I completely agree with you. Some were provoking the hierarchy to a harsh position with regard to us and other tried to provoke both us and our well-wishers to harsh expression with regard to the hierarchy, which would be useful only to them, of course, for obvious reasons. I understand very well that no exacerbation of the conflict in our situation would be for the good of the church. Thus the sooner these questions are resolved, the better.
--Do you agree with Master Filaret's words that publication of working materials on the Internet feeds those who wish the church ill?
--Of course. Thus without extreme need no current internal church texts should appear in the media; everything should be discussed within the church. But there is a problem in that within the church, unfortunately, there still are no responsible media; this is a shame. We have no meetings where it is possible to speak everything openly, however critical or even mistakenly. So until there is freedom of expression within the church itself and until there is a pluralist press the problem will continue.
--Is it possible to say that your problem was somewhat artificially exaggerated in the media?
--Absolutely. Sometimes there was a desire even to cause harm to the church from both sides: both on the part of those who criticized us sharply and of those who tried to defend us strongly. I will not speak of the fact that in all cases there was a lack of tact and knowledge of the real situation. But there cannot be any doubt about this. However there were many quite carefully considered articles.
It may be hoped that the commission's decision will lead to a positive and final resolution of our problem and then this will become a weighty argument for everybody who has distrusted our hierarchy. I know that such distrust exists in places, both abroad and among the intelligentsia and among young people, and that in connection with this many people cite our "case." And if it were to be resolved in a quite churchly manner--and this is possible in the current situation--this would become a serious argument in the dispute with those who condemn the Russian Orthodox church and its hierarchy. (tr. by PDS, posted 12 June 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
As reported by the press service of the Moscow City Duma, today in the duma a round table "Destructive Cults in Moscow. Confessional Anonymity" was held, which was oganized by Deputy Liudmila Stebankova. Participants of the round table, representatives of the evangelistic department of the Moscow patriarchate, Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Nontraditional Religions, staff members of the procuracy, scholars, and reporters, discussed the problem of the activity of diverse sects that have become active in the capital in the recent past.
According to statistics presented by the director of the Center for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Nontraditional Religions, Fr Oleg Steniaev, there now are in Moscow more than 5,000 sectarian groups. Since on the whole the attitude of society toward nontraditional cults is cautious, many sects operate in conditions of confessional anonymity, denying their relationship to any religion and presenting themselves as secular organizations. As parts of the totalitarian Unification Church founded by "Saint" Moon, there are the "Family for unity and peace in all the world" federation and the Federation of Youth for peace in all the World," which declare at the time of "selling" new members extremely good goals: fighting drug addiction, promoting a healthy form of life, and faithfulness in marriage. The members of these organizations cooperate with district councils, give lectures in schools, and demonstrate on the streets. Drawing people, particularly young ones, into their organization, the Moonies condemn them to complete dependence on the cult.
Scientology, "Jehovah's Witnesses," and followers of the Church of Christ also hide their true goals. After some time, their new members who have been subjected to pertinent psychological manipulation then do not have either the will or desire to quit the sects. They abandon their family, work, and friends who could have some influence on them. Finally, they become sectarians in the full sense of the word: people without psychological ties with the real, external world, without individuality, and fanatically attached to a single idea.
Sects of the pseudo-Hindu and Buddhist type often operate through diverse health groups and sections of eastern martial arts. Harmless, at first glance, youth discotheques can be a place for gathering and preaching of satanists. At the meeting there was discussion of the numerous healers, wizards, psychics, and specialists in "black" and "white" magic, whose activity also produces profound harm to the psychological health of the individual.
The Orthodox church is trying to use its efforts to struggle with destructive cults, helping people toe break away from sects; this is being done in particular at the Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Nontraditional Religions located in the church of the Transfiguration of the Lord on Bolshaia Ordynka. However without serious intervention of the state the problem will not be solved. According to the existing Russian law on freedom of conscience, each person has the right to decide for himself what he wants to believe. But at the same time he should possess accurate information about was organizations that are actively attracting people into their ranks really represent. In the opinion of Deputy Stebenkova, it is necessary to create within the Moscow government a special expert council which would united representatives of various branches of power, law enforcement agencies, and various traditional religious confessions. The purpose of its activity should be overseeing the activity of open and secret sectarian organizations as well as actively informing the population about everything that pertains to this topic. (tr. by PDS, posted 13 June 2001)
Russian Religion News Current News Items
If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.